Residents, solar customers urge commissioners to oppose El Paso Electric rate increase

At the July 21 El Paso County Commissioner's Court meeting, residents and rooftop-solar customers urged the court to oppose a proposed El Paso Electric rate increase and asked commissioners to support interveners in the upcoming Public Utility Commission of Texas hearing.

The request came during the public-comment period from speakers who said the utility’s filing would raise bills for households, harm people who depend on powered medical equipment, and penalize customers who installed rooftop solar. Veronica Carbajal, speaking for the Semgrande Esperanza Coalition, said her group's analysis estimates that about 40% of El Paso County households — roughly 118,000 households, or about 341,000 people — would exceed recommended electricity-cost-to-income ratios under the company’s proposal.

Why it matters: Speakers said higher power bills would force some residents to choose between electricity and other necessities. They also argued the company’s proposed small payment for customer-generated solar and new demand charges for solar customers would discourage rooftop systems and shift costs to lower-usage residential customers.

Carbajal described the coalition’s work and evidence-based estimates and said the coalition mailed technical comments and 600 written comments to the utility commission on July 18. “We estimate that the proposed electricity rate increase will cause 40% of El Paso County households — approximately 118,000 households, approximately 341,000 people — to exceed the recommended ratio of electricity expenses to income,” Carbajal said. She emphasized the group’s numbers are estimates and invited the utility to provide its own analysis.

Solar customer Mario Solano recounted his household’s 2024–25 usage and compensation experience. Solano said his rooftop system exported 2,044 kilowatt-hours to the grid between July 2024 and June 2025 and that El Paso Electric credited him about $33 for that energy (about $0.016 per kilowatt-hour). Solano said the utility sold that power to other customers at a higher price and netted between $155 and $186 on his generation after resale; he also said his account paid a $30.25 monthly minimum that added about $142 to his costs over the year. “If El Paso Electric keeps the same rate for paying us for the excess energy we sell them, they will net as much as 860% for the energy that I provided,” Solano said.

Saul Gonzalez, also speaking for neighborhood residents, framed the issue in human terms: higher bills could mean less medication, less food and greater health risk during extreme heat months. “We’re not talking about convenience — we’re talking about survival,” Gonzalez said.

Speakers described two technical findings the coalition released: a bill-impact calculator posted at 711915.org and an affordability analysis they said shows lower-use households would see larger percentage increases than some heavier users. Carbajal said the coalition’s model shows a single-person apartment with modest usage could see a 31–35% increase under some published scenarios, and that the frequently-cited “23%” company figure does not reflect the distributional impacts on small residential customers.

Next steps: Carbajal told the commissioners the contested case hearing will begin Aug. 7 at the Public Utility Commission of Texas unless interveners and the company settle. She asked the court, the county and others to oppose the increase and urged protections for vulnerable customers, including those who rely on medical equipment.

No formal action: Commissioners listened during public comment; the transcript shows no court vote on the utility filing during the July 21 meeting.

Provenance: Public comments on this topic appear in the meeting transcript beginning with Veronica Carbajal’s remarks and ending with her closing appeal to the court and the audience. The coalition’s technical filing and the Aug. 7 hearing date were referenced in those remarks.